Thanks - but my statement "theists know god and atheists don't" is a statement of fact. Your belief in the dictionary that keeps changing its meaning is what we have problems with regarding Christians and the bible.

What makes your definitions more "real" than those used by other people?

Relative to the theists it is a statement of fact. Relative to the atheist is is also a statement of fact.

I do not have a god that is alive nor do I believe in any that comes up in your mind.

If he/she/it is dead, how can it possess a consciousness? Or is he/she/it also non-sentient to the point of not possessing a mind?

How can he/she/it (whatever that means in your head) be dead? Define he she it? Define death? Define consciousness as you understand it. Again this non sentient being - what do you understand it to be? Where is this going?

Define he she it? Define death? Define consciousness as you understand it. Again this non sentient being - what do you understand it to be? Where is this going?

Non-sentient means it can't think like humans and other animals. Since I just explained above that "not alive"="dead", what you claim here is not a contradiction of what I said above. If anything, it strengthens my argument.

The point I was going to make, which is now moot since you just admitted your god is dead (go Nietzsche!), was that, if every living thing needs a creator, then so does your god. And the god that created he/she/it. And the god that created the god that created he/she/it. And so on ad infinitum. I expected you to "counter" (if it can even be called that) with a special pleading fallacy, after which I would explain that your argument was fallacious, and therefore wrong.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Non-sentient means it can't think like humans and other animals. Since I just explained above that "not alive"="dead", what you claim here is not a contradiction of what I said above. If anything, it strengthens my argument.

Your explanation does not have any truths and so the deduction is going to be wrong. We either to know what life is or we do not. Theists say Life is the conscious spiritual life giving energy whose real nature is truth love and consciousness.We know for a fact that we cannot automatically give conscious life to any dead form in a hospital although we know it has every atom in place.

The point I was going to make, which is now moot since you just admitted your god is dead (go Nietzsche!), was that, if every living thing needs a creator, then so does your god. And the god that created he/she/it. And the god that created the god that created he/she/it. And so on ad infinitum. I expected you to "counter" (if it can even be called that) with a special pleading fallacy, after which I would explain that your argument was fallacious, and therefore wrong.

Well I did not admit anything, but if that helps you end the debate then fine. What I am saying is that this process we have used to deduce these things is done with our minds and its creations. We know that our minds tells us all these imaginary stuff - and that draws it's own logic which is flawed giving us beliefs. According to the theists the answer to what life is lies in us. We must first know who we are to know what life is. Otherwise it is all speculation. Theists say we are "conscious spiritual beings" our souls are caught in a physical realm where our minds are tools used to deceive us.

According to the theists "If we want the truth" we need to "stop our minds" from deceiving us and go within.

Thanks - but my statement "theists know god and atheists don't" is a statement of fact.

Nope. Not a statement of fact. A statement of... Wishful thinking? Self delusion? Mistaken identity? Whatever, it is, fact ain't it. You cannot know god, as xians have defined him. He's (allegedly) infinite. However much you (think) you know, it is 0% of the whole.

And that even sets aside the utter lack of evidence, utter lack of interaction, and presumes a god existing in the first place.

It has no answers to the self "life giving energy" that is you - only the self can find its eternal self.

I disagree. The fields which I mentioned can illuminate the fact that there is no eternal self, at least not as imagined by the lunatics and frauds call saints and holy men. And that is an answer of sorts, though not one you are likely to be happy with.

The human body is the instrument and the laboratory for you to know the truth about you - and its same the place where the tests for you are repeatable at the tenth door, the third eye, the ajna chakra.

Nope. Not a statement of fact. A statement of... Wishful thinking? Self delusion? Mistaken identity? Whatever, it is, fact ain't it. You cannot know god, as xians have defined him. He's (allegedly) infinite. However much you (think) you know, it is 0% of the whole.

xtians do not get to define God only the theist get to define it because they know and Jesus did not define it that way.

I am trying to say words keep changing in meaning and the dictionary keeps adapting with time. We cannot assume we know the meaning of the intent of word/s from so long ago nor can we rust in them now. It is what we have problems with when addressing things said in the old testament and it has changed to mean something else in the new testament. The human mind and its thinking process does not have truth in it. It is a changing process and the words we use that emanate from it changes with time. Truth become very illusive. Only the truth remains the truth for all time or it never was true.

.Theists are talking about God and we are talking about the probabilities of its existence.Since theists are the ones who know my references are of what they say. What methods they have used to know and how we too can use the same methods.

I disagree. The fields which I mentioned can illuminate the fact that there is no eternal self, at least not as imagined by the lunatics and frauds call saints and holy men. And that is an answer of sorts, though not one you are likely to be happy with.

Well proof would be a way forward but we seem to be ignoring the facts. Has anyone tested a real theist?

The human body is the instrument and the laboratory for you to know the truth about you - and its same the place where the tests for you are repeatable at the tenth door, the third eye, the ajna chakra.

Nope. Not a statement of fact. A statement of... Wishful thinking? Self delusion? Mistaken identity? Whatever, it is, fact ain't it. You cannot know god, as xians have defined him. He's (allegedly) infinite. However much you (think) you know, it is 0% of the whole.

And that even sets aside the utter lack of evidence, utter lack of interaction, and presumes a god existing in the first place.

Thanks - but my statement "theists know god and atheists don't" is a statement of fact. It is not wishful thinking. 1. From a theist perspective it is a fact 2. From an atheist's perspective it is also a fact. You are disagreeing with the" theists perspective" when in reality you can only know what it right from your perspective.

I am saying that there are some people on here so fixated on the words and its meanings as presented in the dictionary that "their belief" that this meaning is true or fixed prevents us from building a foundation to have a more humane debate where truths are established. Similarly all beliefs result in this deadlock.

When I presented a statement of fact using the word atheist and theist you and others instantly disagreed with it. I saw this disagreement from both sides the same way we see religious folk or they see us. They are words of believers used to create more believers - and believers of one thing or the other only fight with each other. They always fight to prove what they believe is right. (I called that fight a form of cognitive dissonance) since the two cannot come together because no one knows anything that is true. A theists Knows God and an atheist does not remains a fact. So we can build on this without a fight. Thus raising the consciousness of believers.

Therefore IMHO the two words need to be corrected in the minds of believers before there is any meaningful progressive discussions or debates to present a scientific foundation of established truths.

Then you misunderstand. These fields all tell us things about ourselves and how we really work, not just how we think we work.

Additionally, in what way is any religion not "looking outside ourselves"?

The fields you speak about does not tell us anything about us. For instance - I do not know what my twin brother is thinking, nor why he likes certain things that I do not. It does not tell me why he fell down and broke his leg or is so much more intelligent than me. Nor does it tell me why he is now dead and I am still alive. It does not answer why a healthy person just suddenly dies. So the theists are saying "by looking within ourselves we can know what is really going on". Once we know what life is where it comes from where it is going we will understand all these things about ourselves. To do that we need to elevate our thinking process.

Of course we are and to suggest that neurology, cognitive science and psychology helps us understand these things about our true selves is wrong.We are talking about the "real conscious life" "in" "every human being" and these suggestions of the workings of the brain, blood, neurons does not do it justice. If I was to ask you to show me your intelligence you would find yourself in a realm of mental stupor. The theists are talking about something beyond mind and matter when they talk about self consciousness soul spirit etc. The self as they say is the conscious energy that is eternal and "created" (word that is limited) in the image of God(another word also limited). These things must be experienced like you know you have intelligence but you cannot whip it out and show me.

I disagree. The fields which I mentioned can illuminate the fact that there is no eternal self, at least not as imagined by the lunatics and frauds call saints and holy men. And that is an answer of sorts, though not one you are likely to be happy with.

No they cannot. Also lunatics frauds and holy men are not theists. A theist knows God. A lunatic is a lunatic, a fraud is a fraud and a holy man is a holy man.

That is just silly your lack of intelligence. So much for whipping it out.You need to prove that it does not exist to make such statement. The inner travels through what is known as the tenth door is well documented around the theists.

Thanks - but my statement "theists know god and atheists don't" is a statement of fact. It is not wishful thinking. 1. From a theist perspective it is a fact 2. From an atheist's perspective it is also a fact.

You are welcome. However, your statements are ipse dixit. Sure, theists may think of god as fact, but that does not make it so. Facts have to be verifiable. We can talk about the facts of, say, baking, because we where opinions differ, we can go and observe who is right and who is wrong. Not so with gods. Theists pretty much all define god so as to be impossible to verify in any way. That is the trade off they have made.

You see, once upon a time gods were thought of in the same way you and I may think of geese or clouds - obvious, tangible entities. But as people got smarter and better at sorting out the real from unreal, it became obvious that gods were in the latter category. Since so many had invested so much in gods, they could not just accept the fact that gods are imaginary. Instead they redefined them so as to be unassailable. But the trade off is, the very definition that makes them undisprovable also makes them unprovable.

So, you're fucked. You don't get to talk about facts when it comes to knowing gods. At best you can talk about blind faith and beliefs and do violence on anyone who disagrees.

As an atheist, I can tell you 100% that there are no theists who know god whether one exists or not. So you are mistaken on that count as we'll.

The fields you speak about does not tell us anything about us. For instance - I do not know what my twin brother is thinking, nor why he likes certain things that I do not. It does not tell me why he fell down and broke his leg or is so much more intelligent than me. Nor does it tell me why he is now dead and I am still alive. It does not answer why a healthy person just suddenly dies. So the theists are saying "by looking within ourselves we can know what is really going on". Once we know what life is where it comes from where it is going we will understand all these things about ourselves. To do that we need to elevate our thinking process.

I disagree. You are speaking too broadly. When you get done to more specifics, I think all that can be explained. Additionally, looking "within yourself" answers absolutely nothing about you twin.

I think introspection is a good thing. But it has a very narrow limits to what it can achieve, and requires additional external information, particularly from the fields I mentioned.

We are talking about the "real conscious life" "in" "every human being" and these suggestions of the workings of the brain, blood, neurons does not do it justice.

No. It is fundamental to it. You cannot have a conversation about consciousness without discussing something tangible. What exactly is the "real conscious life" and why do you put it in quotes? You seem to be clouding the discussion with vagaries and ambiguity. For your own sake, you should try to avoid that.

The self as they say is the conscious energy that is eternal and "created" (word that is limited) in the image of God(another word also limited). These things must be experienced like you know you have intelligence but you cannot whip it out and show me.

There is no reason to posit a self, as they define it, no reason for me to believe it, and no way for them to establish it as a reality.

No, I don't. You have the burden of proof. In addition to that, you would need explain how your idea would be falsified. "Can't prove it isn't" is a failure as a method of proof. There are an infinite number of ideas you cannot prove do not exist, but it would be preposterous to believe in them.

Thanks - but my statement "theists know god and atheists don't" is a statement of fact. It is not wishful thinking. 1. From a theist perspective it is a fact 2. From an atheist's perspective it is also a fact.

You are welcome. However, your statements are ipse dixit. Sure, theists may think of god as fact, but that does not make it so. Facts have to be verifiable. We can talk about the facts of, say, baking, because we where opinions differ, we can go and observe who is right and who is wrong. Not so with gods. Theists pretty much all define god so as to be impossible to verify in any way. That is the trade off they have made.

You see, once upon a time gods were thought of in the same way you and I may think of geese or clouds - obvious, tangible entities. But as people got smarter and better at sorting out the real from unreal, it became obvious that gods were in the latter category. Since so many had invested so much in gods, they could not just accept the fact that gods are imaginary. Instead they redefined them so as to be unassailable. But the trade off is, the very definition that makes them undisprovable also makes them unprovable.

So, you're fucked. You don't get to talk about facts when it comes to knowing gods. At best you can talk about blind faith and beliefs and do violence on anyone who disagrees.

As an atheist, I can tell you 100% that there are no theists who know god whether one exists or not. So you are mistaken on that count as we'll.

What statement here are a verifiable facts? Lets see if we can redo this on a new thread. As This is distracting from the logic. Theists say "Thou shall not lie" you cannot say you know god if you don't if you are a theist.

As for the threads Purpose I have already suggested two books for "the probabilities of Gods existence." if anyone cared to read them and comment.

1. The case for for God by Karen Armstrong2. New Proofs for the Existence of God by Robert J Spitzer.

You can do better than that. This is the first line from that web site."Do you believe in God? If so, at some point in time, someone convinced you that God does exist. "The problem with that line is that if forgets we were all born Tabula Rasa. Everything anyone knows - someone has taught them at some point in time.All your beliefs are based on it.

How do you know what you were when you were born?Do you remember telling your mom I am an atheist?

I can't speak for Nam. I do, however, remember telling my mom that you were an atheist.

I was told I was a christian when I was young. I assumed I was. Only because others said those words to me. When I got old enough to figure out that I wasn't, I quite making that claim. Granted, it took me until I was 11 to figure it out, but I was slow. So yes, I did tell my mom I was an atheist (well, not really, I hadn't heard the word, I just told her that there is no god and let it go at that.) But only after I figured out I'd been duped.

Had no one ever tried to make a christian out of me, I could have skipped that part. And I wish I had.

How do you know what you were when you were born?Do you remember telling your mom I am an atheist?

I can't speak for Nam. I do, however, remember telling my mom that you were an atheist.

I was told I was a christian when I was young. I assumed I was. Only because others said those words to me. When I got old enough to figure out that I wasn't, I quite making that claim. Granted, it took me until I was 11 to figure it out, but I was slow. So yes, I did tell my mom I was an atheist (well, not really, I hadn't heard the word, I just told her that there is no god and let it go at that.) But only after I figured out I'd been duped.

Had no one ever tried to make a christian out of me, I could have skipped that part. And I wish I had.

That is why the law says "Thou shall not lie" .If you are not a Christian people should not say to you that you are. Or that they are. Technically Jesus (a Theist) took his followers(Christians) with him if they knew him, believed in him and did what he told them. Free will is not interrupted so chances are few went with him.

Saying that people start out atheistic is pretty much worthless, because infants start out being pretty much ignorant of everything anyway.

Actually they start of innocent and pure. Ignorant of those who are older and already here with their corrupted egotistical ways and desires and they will use and abuse them through that journey of life to the end. Only a theist has a pure intention for them. To remain pure and innocent and to know God.

How do you know what you were when you were born?Do you remember telling your mom I am an atheist?

Seeing how I didn't know anything when I was born nor does anyone else, the conclusion is I or everywhere else didn't know what a god or gods were therefore the conclusion is one is born an atheist. Just like one is born a baby, or is it now your implication we're not born babies but something else?